Replies

Not one word of what you just said is true, and I already proved your comment re: Minor V. Happersett was blatantly false. The Court specifically said they were making no such judgment in the ruling, yet you sit here, even after the direct quote was given with a direct link to the ruling itself for verification, say just the opposite. Obviously what you are saying is false, and you have to know it because it is staring you right in the face - along with the other court rulings proving your comments to be completely false. There is no way around this. Ignoring the facts and just posting your false statements all over again that were proven to be false doesn’t make them anymore true than when you started. You should be embarrassed. Knock it off.

“The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens. ” (Emphasis added.)

As you can see in plain English, the Court had no doubts about who were the natural born Citizens. The doubt was wether children born in the US to non-citizen parents were “citizens”.

Read that passage in Minor Vs. Happersett very carefully, and you will see that the US Supreme Court clearly defined “natural-born citizen” by two independent remarks:

1. “…all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also.” First, the Court states that these persons are “citizens”. But then it makes a second statement about this class –

2. “These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.” This class of citizens are part of a class defined as “natural-born citizens”. They are citizens, natural-born. This distinguishes them from all other citizens. If this were not the case, it would have been sufficient for the Court to stop at the first statement concerning their citizenship.

But the Court didn’t stop there. Because the Court was avoiding the 14th Amendment, the Court went to the second step and defined this class to be different from all other citizens. This class did not require the 14th Amendment to be US citizens.

Whether persons born in the US to non-citizen parents were “citizens” was not a question before the Minor Court because Mrs. Minor was natural-born, whereas Wong Kim Ark was not. The determination of his citizenship required the 14th Amendment, whereas Mrs. Minor’s did not.

It was held that Mrs. Minor was a US citizen – as the syllabus states in point 2 – because she was born in the US to parents who were citizens. This was the independent ground that springs forth precedent. (See Ogilvie Et Al., Minors v. United States, 519 U.S. 79 at 84 (1996)).

MINOR V. HAPPERSETT IS BINDING PRECEDENT AS TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL DEFINITION OF A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.